Wow. What kind of planet are you on that you would use that to try and shut me down like that? Of course I'm outraged with officers killing people preemptively. Prime example is Chris Dorner being burned to death.

Plus, police officers are (supposedly) held accountable for their actions while on duty. All police shootings are supposed to be treated as homicides until an investigation clears it as a justified shooting (perps were shooting first, etc.). With this drone strike policy, there is no accountability on the part of the government. If you are associated with a person who they have deemed a terrorist (say your cousin, or uncle) they can now "legally" kill you using military resources on American soil.

Big D, I thought the Democrats were always arguing for the rights of terrorists to have trials and not to be locked up indefinitely in a location like Gitmo. How can you justify the use of military force on American soil without Congressional approval, to kill people who are suspected of terrorism? How can you even sit there and pretend that it is even remotely acceptable for the President of the United States to absolutely and totally overstep his bounds like that. If this was George Bush doing this, you'd be outraged.

Which by the way, potential terrorists are any members of either the Tea Party movement or Occupy Wall Street.

Wow. What kind of planet are you on that you would use that to try and shut me down like that? Of course I'm outraged with officers killing people preemptively. Prime example is Chris Dorner being burned to death.

Plus, police officers are (supposedly) held accountable for their actions while on duty. All police shootings are supposed to be treated as homicides until an investigation clears it as a justified shooting (perps were shooting first, etc.). With this drone strike policy, there is no accountability on the part of the government. If you are associated with a person who they have deemed a terrorist (say your cousin, or uncle) they can now "legally" kill you using military resources on American soil.

Big D, I thought the Democrats were always arguing for the rights of terrorists to have trials and not to be locked up indefinitely in a location like Gitmo. How can you justify the use of military force on American soil without Congressional approval, to kill people who are suspected of terrorism? How can you even sit there and pretend that it is even remotely acceptable for the President of the United States to absolutely and totally overstep his bounds like that. If this was George Bush doing this, you'd be outraged.

Which by the way, potential terrorists are any members of either the Tea Party movement or Occupy Wall Street.

Where was your anger when the Patriot Act was passed in 2003 (and passed again in 2009)? Since we began to let fear of terrorists dictate how we run our government, I can't believe anyone is in shock about the use of drones (in which in no way do I condone).

Maybe I'm missing something from another quote or interview but in the article posted and reading Holder's letter, he very clearly states that a drone strike has never been done, and they reject military action as law enforcement. He then uses two very specific events in this hypothetical question as to when, hypothetically we could deploy drones to protect the united states, IE: stopping the world trade center attacks and stopping the Pearl Harbor attack. So let me rephrase the question, "Could F-15's ever be deployed against citizens of the United States?" If the use of F-15's could have stopped Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center attacks then we would review the information and advised the President accordingly.

Does replacing F-15's with drones change something? We scrambled dozens of armed fighter planes on Sept 11th, I don't remember anyone being upset about that. Isn't that all this letter is outlining in Holder's hypothetical situation? Where is leap from stopping Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11th to drone strikes for over due library books being made?

Dick Cheney: “I gave the instructions that we’d authorize our pilots to take it out,” he says, referring to the jet headed to Washington that crashed in a Pennsylvania field. He adds: “After I’d given the order, it was pretty quiet. Everybody had heard it, and it was obviously a significant moment.”

Note that he didn't even bother checking the legality of that order, he just issued it.

Maybe I'm missing something from another quote or interview but in the article posted and reading Holder's letter, he very clearly states that a drone strike has never been done, and they reject military action as law enforcement. He then uses two very specific events in this hypothetical question as to when, hypothetically we could deploy drones to protect the united states, IE: stopping the world trade center attacks and stopping the Pearl Harbor attack. So let me rephrase the question, "Could F-15's ever be deployed against citizens of the United States?" If the use of F-15's could have stopped Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center attacks then we would review the information and advised the President accordingly.

Does replacing F-15's with drones change something? We scrambled dozens of armed fighter planes on Sept 11th, I don't remember anyone being upset about that. Isn't that all this letter is outlining in Holder's hypothetical situation? Where is leap from stopping Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11th to drone strikes for over due library books being made?

Amen brother. What is the real difference between a drone strike and any other preemptive attack? Why does it matter if its on US soil or foreign? Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen, as was his son and I gave an air high five when he got toasted in Yemen. If you bring unconventional warfare to the US homeland then F--K you, enjoy a drone launched Hellfire up your arse.

I understand the concerns of where this will lead in the future. The idea of surveillance drones and other terrorism as a pretext to invade our civil liberties is terrifying. Is this the world we live in by our own hand or are we really dealing with crazies out to get us. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. In practice, this really changes nothing, it just increases the efficiency of getting rid of "bad guys".

Preemptive attacks against American citizens anywhere is unconstitutional. Get that through your heads. It's even worse on American soil, because they list groups like the Tea Party and OWS was extremist organizations that could breed terrorists. It's a slippery slope from there.

Where was my outrage back then? I was 12. I didn't understand most of what was happening until it was unfortunately too late. Don't be an ass. Between the last two presidential administrations, we have seen an unprecedented loss of rights. I was outraged when Bush slipped the NDAA through. I was outraged when Obama renewed the Patriot Act, and I was outraged when Obama renewed and expanded the NDAA.

Hey Brett, I read the article, stop acting all superior all the damn time. If Bush was the one who was saying this stuff, all of you would be up in arms right now.

The precedent has been set overseas for how they can use drones to kill American citizens, and just the option of using it on American soil is a concern. Ignoring that fact when it comes to an administration that was been anything but transparent should tell you that something is wrong. The Obama administration doesn't answer to anyone over these attacks that have killed far more civilians than terrorists.

As for the Pearl Harbor reference, we were being attacked by a foreign military, therefore a military response in defense of the nation was and still would be appropriate. That is a completely legal situation for military force in the U.S.

The 9/11 reference. What happens if those figher jets (or drones) shoot down the wrong plane?

Are you Democrats on the board really okay with the President of the United States having the power to kill American citizens without due process? Or are you just okay with Obama having that power. You have to remember, in four years, a guy you might not like will have these abilities, and maybe the Obama administration doesn't use it for nefarious or suspect purposes, what if the next guy (maybe a scary Republican) does?

You people argue over the rights of foreign terrorists to a fair trial in the United States, but somehow you're okay with Americans losing rights to privacy or to a trial. I just don't understand the logic? Is it just because you like Obama that much?

So if they could use a drone/plane/tanks/missile to stop an eminent threat to the US on US soil against a US citizen and didn’t because it violated his/her rights and that person blows something up and kills thousands its ok because their rights were protected? Sounds pretty weak to me.

And what happens if they target the wrong person? Or begin targeting people because they "pose a threat" real or not?

Look, I understand the idea that they claim that they will only stop an imminent attack, but once you give the government the drone strike abilities in the U.S., under that premise or not, (it has been shown time and time again with other anti-terrorism methods in the last decade) they will expand it. Stopping someone in the commission of a crime is a different story from what they did to Anwar al-Aulaqi and his son. This drone thing can and will eventually give them the power to do the same thing here in the U.S.A..

How would you feel if they mistakenly hit a target and it killed family members? How would you feel if they hit the correct target, killed the two terrorists, and then with collateral damage killed 25 American civilians? Because that's how drone strikes have been working overseas. They have killed on terrorist for every 50 civilians.

We shouldn't have to sit by and live in a country where our basic Constitutional rights are stripped from us by a fear mongering government. And if you believe that we have to, just because that's the way it is, then that is a part of the problem.

Paul, that is a statistic regarding both missed targets and the use of drone strikes in areas where there was a civilian presence.

Good news everyone... While Holder left the initial message vague and unclear as to the actual meaning of imminent, Rand Paul's filibuster forced a straightforward answer from the administration, finally. The answer was a resounding "No."

It really is down to the fact that rather than give straight answers all along, the administration has been dodging the issue to the best of their abilities. Something that everyone should find suspect. Rand Paul forcing a straightforward answer by the administration was clearly what was needed.

Still means though that if you are a perceived terrorist and you go to foreign soil, they can do whatever they want. Which is still a point of contention.

It should be noted that I am not for the killing of Americans in the same manner as a drone strike either (be it Apache's or F16s).

Perhaps pressure such as this filibuster might bring to light the sheer insanity of a never ending War on Terror that is stripping Americans of their rights.